New Browns uni coming 2015

[IceCap]

Would like to see the Browns add some kind of helmet logo in any new look. if you're going to break from tradition make a clean break. Don't pull a Cardinals and keep your old helmet (with a slightly updated logo) on a completely new and modern uniform template.

The relatively classic helmet is the only thing that saves the Cards' clown suits from being a total disaster.

As for the Browns? Their logo-less helmet makes them distinct in the NFL. Putting a bulldog or elf on it just because would be to piss away a lot of brand equity.

[Lights Out]

On the topic of UCLA stripes wrapping all the way around - couldn't the stripes just be printed onto the jersey?

[Gothamite]

Would like to see the Browns add some kind of helmet logo in any new look. if you're going to break from tradition make a clean break. Don't pull a Cardinals and keep your old helmet (with a slightly updated logo) on a completely new and modern uniform template.

The relatively classic helmet is the only thing that saves the Cards' clown suits from being a total disaster.

As for the Browns? Their logo-less helmet makes them distinct in the NFL. Putting a bulldog or elf on it just because would be to piss away a lot of brand equity.

Agreed. On both counts.

[infrared41]

No, he's not mean or menacing, or any of the other things a "modern" logo is supposed to be, but for my money, this is still the best Browns logo I've run across. The Elf is whimsical and sometimes that's enough for a logo.

[BrianLion]

I disagree. You don't need a helmet logo to have a successful package. The Eagles don't really have a marketable helmet logo - the wings really aren't used anywhere else in their package or on any merch. What the Browns do need is a clearly defined primary logo that they can put on caps, shirts, maybe under the collar, and on the field.

I think we're past the days of the helmets being considered team logos (not saying that's a good thing) so I think that them remaining logoless kind of keeps their "thing" in tact, while creating opportunities for a logo that can be used elsewhere.

Except the Eagles have "something" on their helmets that makes them unique, same as the Vikings or Rams. It's a positive sort of uniqueness. It's not unique for just being a blank canvas, (which the Browns and half the Steelers are). Those three teams market the hell out of their helmets on merchandise, same as any other team.

Would like to see the Browns add some kind of helmet logo in any new look. if you're going to break from tradition make a clean break. Don't pull a Cardinals and keep your old helmet (with a slightly updated logo) on a completely new and modern uniform template.

The relatively classic helmet is the only thing that saves the Cards' clown suits from being a total disaster.

As for the Browns? Their logo-less helmet makes them distinct in the NFL. Putting a bulldog or elf on it just because would be to piss away a lot of brand equity.

Why does it have the be a bulldog or an Elf? If you're gonna break tradition with the uniforms completely, then just go all out and design some kind of new logo all together.

[guest23]

No, he's not mean or menacing, or any of the other things a "modern" logo is supposed to be, but for my money, this is still the best Browns logo I've run across. The Elf is whimsical and sometimes that's enough for a logo.

It's a great secondary but too detailed for a primary IMO. Both the chargers just need something simple as a primary similar to a basic soccer crest for merch and media. Leave the helmets as they are.

[MJWalker45]

Stripes can be screened on, but with the template it would stop at the hems on the shoulders.

[Lights Out]

Stripes can be screened on, but with the template it would stop at the hems on the shoulders.

Why do they have to stop there, though? If stripes can be sublimated into mesh panels on the pants, surely they can have the stripes on the jerseys loop around through the mesh underarm panels, right?

[TheOldRoman]

When the stripes are sublimated onto the pants, they are added to a flat piece of material before it's sewn into the rest of the pants. So they probably produce hundreds of striped inserts at a time, then sew them into the pants later. That's much different that assembling a jersey, sublimating stripes onto it covering multiple seems, and turning it several times to make sure all parts get the sublimation, including the back and over the shoulders. It would be much more difficult than them just coming up with a proper striping panel around the shoulders (which I think the LSU version is close to).

[IceCap]

I disagree. You don't need a helmet logo to have a successful package. The Eagles don't really have a marketable helmet logo - the wings really aren't used anywhere else in their package or on any merch. What the Browns do need is a clearly defined primary logo that they can put on caps, shirts, maybe under the collar, and on the field.

I think we're past the days of the helmets being considered team logos (not saying that's a good thing) so I think that them remaining logoless kind of keeps their "thing" in tact, while creating opportunities for a logo that can be used elsewhere.

Except the Eagles have "something" on their helmets that makes them unique, same as the Vikings or Rams. It's a positive sort of uniqueness. It's not unique for just being a blank canvas, (which the Browns and half the Steelers are). Those three teams market the hell out of their helmets on merchandise, same as any other team.

Would like to see the Browns add some kind of helmet logo in any new look. if you're going to break from tradition make a clean break. Don't pull a Cardinals and keep your old helmet (with a slightly updated logo) on a completely new and modern uniform template.

The relatively classic helmet is the only thing that saves the Cards' clown suits from being a total disaster.

As for the Browns? Their logo-less helmet makes them distinct in the NFL. Putting a bulldog or elf on it just because would be to piss away a lot of brand equity.

Why does it have the be a bulldog or an Elf? If you're gonna break tradition with the uniforms completely, then just go all out and design some kind of new logo all together.

When I think Cleveland Browns their logo-less helmet is the first thing to come to mind. There's a strong brand associated with that. It would be a poor business decision to add any sort of logo.

[CitizenTino]

I disagree. You don't need a helmet logo to have a successful package. The Eagles don't really have a marketable helmet logo - the wings really aren't used anywhere else in their package or on any merch. What the Browns do need is a clearly defined primary logo that they can put on caps, shirts, maybe under the collar, and on the field.

I think we're past the days of the helmets being considered team logos (not saying that's a good thing) so I think that them remaining logoless kind of keeps their "thing" in tact, while creating opportunities for a logo that can be used elsewhere.

Except the Eagles have "something" on their helmets that makes them unique, same as the Vikings or Rams. It's a positive sort of uniqueness. It's not unique for just being a blank canvas, (which the Browns and half the Steelers are). Those three teams market the hell out of their helmets on merchandise, same as any other team.

Would like to see the Browns add some kind of helmet logo in any new look. if you're going to break from tradition make a clean break. Don't pull a Cardinals and keep your old helmet (with a slightly updated logo) on a completely new and modern uniform template.

The relatively classic helmet is the only thing that saves the Cards' clown suits from being a total disaster.

As for the Browns? Their logo-less helmet makes them distinct in the NFL. Putting a bulldog or elf on it just because would be to piss away a lot of brand equity.

Why does it have the be a bulldog or an Elf? If you're gonna break tradition with the uniforms completely, then just go all out and design some kind of new logo all together.

When I think Cleveland Browns their logo-less helmet is the first thing to come to mind. There's a strong brand associated with that. It would be a poor business decision to add any sort of logo.

That's fair, but on the flip side: Given their mostly futile history in the Super Bowl era, is that really a brand you desperately want to cling to?

[TheOldRoman]

I don't know, define "desperately cling to"? Were the Red Sox desperately clinging to their home jerseys before 2004? What is the timeframe without championships after which teams should jettison their strong, classic looks and let Nike design something for them? The Cubs are obviously past that point, so maybe they should rebrand to navy and volt with Hydrographics designing a silver road uniform.

[shaydre1019]

I don't know, define "desperately cling to"? Were the Red Sox desperately clinging to their home jerseys before 2004? What is the timeframe without championships after which teams should jettison their strong, classic looks and let Nike design something for them? The Cubs are obviously past that point, so maybe they should rebrand to navy and volt with Hydrographics designing a silver road uniform.

Not winning a World Series is a lot different than just being a complete joke of a franchise with hardly any wins and zero stability a the qb position or anywhere else for that matter.

Brian Hoyer is the only qb in franchise history with a winning record and he just got benched. Their problem isn't that they can't win a championship, it's that they can't win games. Completely different.

Maybe the Browns should just switch their logo to a revo speed helmet...

[CitizenTino]

What, exactly, is "the strong brand" associated with the team's current look? What thoughts/feelings does that brand evoke? Is it something a fan of the team wants to continue being associated with?

[TheOldRoman]

I don't know, define "desperately cling to"? Were the Red Sox desperately clinging to their home jerseys before 2004? What is the timeframe without championships after which teams should jettison their strong, classic looks and let Nike design something for them? The Cubs are obviously past that point, so maybe they should rebrand to navy and volt with Hydrographics designing a silver road uniform.

Not winning a World Series is a lot different than just being a complete joke of a franchise with hardly any wins and zero stability a the qb position or anywhere else for that matter.

Brian Hoyer is the only qb in franchise history with a winning record and he just got benched. Their problem isn't that they can't win a championship, it's that they can't win games. Completely different.

Maybe the Browns should just switch their logo to a revo speed helmet...

I don't know that the parallel universe exists in which the Cubs aren't a joke of a franchise. And you can say "This Cleveland Browns franchise didn't exist before 1999" until you're blue in the face, but it's not true.

The Browns have a strong, classic look which is loved by a huge portion of their strong fanbase. There is a huge amount of brand equity just from having NFL Films of Jim Brown and even the good teams in the '80s which fell short. Having a strong look that dates back 50 years is huge. I think the Bucs' creamsicles were great, but I at least understand why people would say the look was soft and a joke which symbolized horrid teams. But there's nothing comically bad or effeminate about the Browns' jerseys. The Bears and Raiders (currently) have all been awful in classic uniforms, and they didn't change them just because the teams lost. The Packers and Colts didn't change their uniforms when they went many years between Super Bowls titles (both tweaked them, but then undid the tweaks).

So, the brand has a strong connection with the fanbase, and symbolizes hard-nosed football for a team in a blue collar city. That's fine. And even that aside, they have a solid look. So people need to stop looking to Nike to provide a greater meaning to team uniforms. We don't need the Bengals to look like :censored:ing tigers. We don't need the Vikings to have numbers that mimic a Viking sail. Just make a good football uniform. The Browns have that, and they are abandoning it.

[hugevolsfan]

What, exactly, is "the strong brand" associated with the team's current look? What thoughts/feelings does that brand evoke? Is it something a fan of the team wants to continue being associated with?

To me the biggest problem is not their strong brand now it is the almost certainty that the brand Nike puts out will be considerably worse.

All the teams they touched I would rate like this so far:

1. Minnesota Vikings - Slight Upgrade, not a big fan but overall it is better than what it replaced

2. Seattle Seahawks - Push, I was never a fan of their previous set & I really like some of the aspects but way too many inconsistencies on this one

3. Miami Dolphins - Downgrade in everything they changed from the previous set

4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Downgrade in everything they changed from the previous set

5. Jacksonville Jaguars - Downgrade, Helmet is the worst thing I have seen in the NFL and the uniforms are slightly better than before but no where near the excellence of the 90s uniform

Looking at the stats say the Browns have about a 20% of looking better than they do now, 20% of looking the same, & 60% of looking worse or like a bunch of clowns.

The stats are not in their favor.

[CLEstones]

What, exactly, is "the strong brand" associated with the team's current look? What thoughts/feelings does that brand evoke? Is it something a fan of the team wants to continue being associated with?

Looking at the stats say the Browns have about a 20% of looking better than they do now, 20% of looking the same, & 60% of looking worse or like a bunch of clowns.

[infrared41]

No, he's not mean or menacing, or any of the other things a "modern" logo is supposed to be, but for my money, this is still the best Browns logo I've run across. The Elf is whimsical and sometimes that's enough for a logo.

It's a great secondary but too detailed for a primary IMO. Both the chargers just need something simple as a primary similar to a basic soccer crest for merch and media. Leave the helmets as they are.

I didn't mean the Browns should put this on the helmet, I just meant they should use it as a logo. The helmets are perfect as is.

[shaydre1019]

I don't know, define "desperately cling to"? Were the Red Sox desperately clinging to their home jerseys before 2004? What is the timeframe without championships after which teams should jettison their strong, classic looks and let Nike design something for them? The Cubs are obviously past that point, so maybe they should rebrand to navy and volt with Hydrographics designing a silver road uniform.

Not winning a World Series is a lot different than just being a complete joke of a franchise with hardly any wins and zero stability a the qb position or anywhere else for that matter.

Brian Hoyer is the only qb in franchise history with a winning record and he just got benched. Their problem isn't that they can't win a championship, it's that they can't win games. Completely different.

Maybe the Browns should just switch their logo to a revo speed helmet...

I don't know that the parallel universe exists in which the Cubs aren't a joke of a franchise. And you can say "This Cleveland Browns franchise didn't exist before 1999" until you're blue in the face, but it's not true.

The Browns have a strong, classic look which is loved by a huge portion of their strong fanbase. There is a huge amount of brand equity just from having NFL Films of Jim Brown and even the good teams in the '80s which fell short. Having a strong look that dates back 50 years is huge. I think the Bucs' creamsicles were great, but I at least understand why people would say the look was soft and a joke which symbolized horrid teams. But there's nothing comically bad or effeminate about the Browns' jerseys. The Bears and Raiders (currently) have all been awful in classic uniforms, and they didn't change them just because the teams lost. The Packers and Colts didn't change their uniforms when they went many years between Super Bowls titles (both tweaked them, but then undid the tweaks).

So, the brand has a strong connection with the fanbase, and symbolizes hard-nosed football for a team in a blue collar city. That's fine. And even that aside, they have a solid look. So people need to stop looking to Nike to provide a greater meaning to team uniforms. We don't need the Bengals to look like :censored:ing tigers. We don't need the Vikings to have numbers that mimic a Viking sail. Just make a good football uniform. The Browns have that, and they are abandoning it.

The Cubs have been in the playoffs, and the aforementioned football teams have all played in a super bowl in the past 10-15 yrs. I don't recall the Browns even having a winning season much less playoff appearances. Not saying they haven't had a winning season but if they have it doesn't seem like it and that seems to be the sentiment regarding the Browns.

With that being said I'm definitely a big fan of their current look. I associate it with losing but I do think it's a good look. I even like the brown pants.

[TalktoChuck]

I don't know, define "desperately cling to"? Were the Red Sox desperately clinging to their home jerseys before 2004? What is the timeframe without championships after which teams should jettison their strong, classic looks and let Nike design something for them? The Cubs are obviously past that point, so maybe they should rebrand to navy and volt with Hydrographics designing a silver road uniform.

Not winning a World Series is a lot different than just being a complete joke of a franchise with hardly any wins and zero stability a the qb position or anywhere else for that matter.

Brian Hoyer is the only qb in franchise history with a winning record and he just got benched. Their problem isn't that they can't win a championship, it's that they can't win games. Completely different.

Maybe the Browns should just switch their logo to a revo speed helmet...

I don't know that the parallel universe exists in which the Cubs aren't a joke of a franchise. And you can say "This Cleveland Browns franchise didn't exist before 1999" until you're blue in the face, but it's not true.

The Browns have a strong, classic look which is loved by a huge portion of their strong fanbase. There is a huge amount of brand equity just from having NFL Films of Jim Brown and even the good teams in the '80s which fell short. Having a strong look that dates back 50 years is huge. I think the Bucs' creamsicles were great, but I at least understand why people would say the look was soft and a joke which symbolized horrid teams. But there's nothing comically bad or effeminate about the Browns' jerseys. The Bears and Raiders (currently) have all been awful in classic uniforms, and they didn't change them just because the teams lost. The Packers and Colts didn't change their uniforms when they went many years between Super Bowls titles (both tweaked them, but then undid the tweaks).

So, the brand has a strong connection with the fanbase, and symbolizes hard-nosed football for a team in a blue collar city. That's fine. And even that aside, they have a solid look. So people need to stop looking to Nike to provide a greater meaning to team uniforms. We don't need the Bengals to look like :censored:ing tigers. We don't need the Vikings to have numbers that mimic a Viking sail. Just make a good football uniform. The Browns have that, and they are abandoning it.

The Cubs have been in the playoffs, and the aforementioned football teams have all played in a super bowl in the past 10-15 yrs. I don't recall the Browns even having a winning season much less playoff appearances. Not saying they haven't had a winning season but if they have it doesn't seem like it and that seems to be the sentiment regarding the Browns.

With that being said I'm definitely a big fan of their current look. I associate it with losing but I do think it's a good look. I even like the brown pants.

Kelly Holcomb and the 2002 playoff Browns say hi!